Gun ownership: Because you can? Or because you need?

originally posted by: Harvin
a reply to: nonspecific

It is supposed to be bemusing to a simpleton like you. Make no mistake i would be strapped like nobodies business.

Ok now I am really at a loss as to your point of view.

Random insult aimed at no one in particular followed by an insult to me.

Good luck with that although I really am bemused.

But hey, I am just a simpleton and failed to understand your informed and concise input to this conversation right?

AS said early on...American citizens have a duty to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign & domestic and the 2nd Amendment is a gift for that end......hard to defend the your rights with a stick when the other side is slinging lead. For some like me it's just a way of life...no different than any others hobbies.

I've owned guns more or less continuously for over 50yrs. To me it's like a fire extinguisher. No one needs a fire extinguisher. Until they do. And then they need one really, really badly. Same thing with guns.

All I know is that this topic, as well as being hotly debated, is far more complex than the simpletons like, for example, Piers Morgan portray(ed).

Guns are banned here in the UK and I don't feel more safe, despite living in an area of low crime. Its difficult to say if I would feel safer with a gun, but I do know that violent crime has not fallen since the ban, quite the contrary it has gone up. There are many factors contained within that rise of course.

One area that is a problem is burglery - put simply if someone decides to rob you over here there is not much you can do except play nice, let them take what they want and hope you dont get hurt. Living in a low crime area reduces the risk but does not eliminate it. I guess it depends on how safe you really want to be as to whether a gun is 'needed' or 'wanted'.

I am interested in the debate on this, because I have had the argument so many times over here (most UK citizens seem to think the equation is very simple; ban guns and murder rates drop with risk greatly reduced).

a reply to: brace22

Star and flag for a well written post, even though I am an avid gun owner and staunch supporter of the second amendment.

I believe for me, its because I can... and because I need, and because I want.

I hunt, I back country hike, I have often driven thousands of miles alone and run into some very sketchy characters.

I also enjoy just shooting, its almost therapeutic for me to lose myself in the mechanics of shooting, then cleaning the gun.

Lastly... yes its an enshrined right in our Constitution... even in my younger days when I wasn't really interested in guns I would argue in favor of gun ownership out of sheer distrust of the current govt, if we give them the ability to remove 1 right, whats to stop them from removing others. (yes I am irate about the abuse of the 4th)

(on a side note most of my adult life I have never needed to hunt for food, but I have known people that had to, and personally I prefer fresh meat over chemically preserved processed crap.)

originally posted by: UKTruth
All I know is that this topic, as well as being hotly debated, is far more complex than the simpletons like, for example, Piers Morgan portray(ed).

Guns are banned here in the UK and I don't feel more safe, despite living in an area of low crime. Its difficult to say if I would feel safer with a gun, but I do know that violent crime has not fallen since the ban, quite the contrary it has gone up. There are many factors contained within that rise of course.

One area that is a problem is burglery - put simply if someone decides to rob you over here there is not much you can do except play nice, let them take what they want and hope you dont get hurt. Living in a low crime area reduces the risk but does not eliminate it. I guess it depends on how safe you really want to be as to whether a gun is 'needed' or 'wanted'.

I am interested in the debate on this, because I have had the argument so many times over here (most UK citizens seem to think the equation is very simple; ban guns and murder rates drop with risk greatly reduced).

An interesting question and your locations is the midlands( I lived in Sneinton Nottingaham for 10 years)

How many people do you know that were robbed by people armed with guns?

Genuine question because if you want to be armed for protection then the guy robbing you will also be armed.

originally posted by: charlyv

I hope you jest. The police have a vested interest in residential gun safety. Sure there are some anomalies and problems with all people, which includes police. However, the 99.999% may certainly save your life some day.

That is why I said at times, but who knows I might be a criminal and then the 99.999% would not be very good to my living...lol

originally posted by: Badgered1

originally posted by: jaws1975


3. To protect my family from out of control law enforcement and or government.

PLEASE NOTE: Using this quote as a example and not directing anything personally against the poster:

Can I ask - with the utmost respect - what other methods those of you who own weapons for this reason (among others) have used to avoid having out of control law enforcement and/or government?

Again, this isn't meant as a firebrand question, but to try to understand the mindset.
Are you politically active in removing corruption from these organizations?

I protested with occupy, I called my politician's to voice my opinion and I was a huge supporter of Ron Paul. Made no difference. What would you have me do?

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: UKTruth
All I know is that this topic, as well as being hotly debated, is far more complex than the simpletons like, for example, Piers Morgan portray(ed).

Guns are banned here in the UK and I don't feel more safe, despite living in an area of low crime. Its difficult to say if I would feel safer with a gun, but I do know that violent crime has not fallen since the ban, quite the contrary it has gone up. There are many factors contained within that rise of course.

One area that is a problem is burglery - put simply if someone decides to rob you over here there is not much you can do except play nice, let them take what they want and hope you dont get hurt. Living in a low crime area reduces the risk but does not eliminate it. I guess it depends on how safe you really want to be as to whether a gun is 'needed' or 'wanted'.

I am interested in the debate on this, because I have had the argument so many times over here (most UK citizens seem to think the equation is very simple; ban guns and murder rates drop with risk greatly reduced).

An interesting question and your locations is the midlands( I lived in Sneinton Nottingaham for 10 years)

How many people do you know that were robbed by people armed with guns?

Genuine question because if you want to be armed for protection then the guy robbing you will also be armed.

2 families I know, though not in the midlands - I moved here from east London and don't know as may people as I did in London.
One was burglery and murder - poor man answered his door and was blown away with a shotgun.

I guess the other question runs along the lines of how willing would burglers be to risk their lives - would it make a difference. At the moment the risk is low and the reward high (potentially).

I am not really sure what the answer is and also not convinced the UK is really relevant when talking about America and gun control. The 2 correlations I have always found repeatedly when looking at gun crime are population density and poverty levels. If you take them both (in a regresison model if you will) you do find correlation. The big difference between the US and the UK is these two areas with the number of poor highly populated areas somehting like 50 times less in the UK.

I woudl suspect that is why most UK people would say no to guns and also come down on teh side of 'want' rather than 'need' if they were available and one chose to buy one.

There is no requirement to provide a need for a weapon in order to be granted permission by some bureaucrat in the U.S. Constitution. The men that wrote it knew that everybody needed them. Knew that the government would be the most likely to try to hold what they thought was a natural right in abeyance. And that ultimately that is the supreme reason for exercising the right to bear arms.

In other words the more you (govt, media, leftist useful idiot varieties and the actual dictator wannabe's that use them) try to take our guns the more reason we have to think we need them.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: UKTruth
All I know is that this topic, as well as being hotly debated, is far more complex than the simpletons like, for example, Piers Morgan portray(ed).

Guns are banned here in the UK and I don't feel more safe, despite living in an area of low crime. Its difficult to say if I would feel safer with a gun, but I do know that violent crime has not fallen since the ban, quite the contrary it has gone up. There are many factors contained within that rise of course.

One area that is a problem is burglery - put simply if someone decides to rob you over here there is not much you can do except play nice, let them take what they want and hope you dont get hurt. Living in a low crime area reduces the risk but does not eliminate it. I guess it depends on how safe you really want to be as to whether a gun is 'needed' or 'wanted'.

I am interested in the debate on this, because I have had the argument so many times over here (most UK citizens seem to think the equation is very simple; ban guns and murder rates drop with risk greatly reduced).

An interesting question and your locations is the midlands( I lived in Sneinton Nottingaham for 10 years)

How many people do you know that were robbed by people armed with guns?

Genuine question because if you want to be armed for protection then the guy robbing you will also be armed.

2 families I know, though not in the midlands - I moved here from east London and don't know as may people as I did in London.
One was burglery and murder - poor man answered his door and was blown away with a shotgun.

I guess the other question runs along the lines of how willing would burglers be to risk their lives - would it make a difference. At the moment the risk is low and the reward high (potentially).

I am not really sure what the answer is and also not convinced the UK is really relevant when talking about America and gun control. The 2 correlations I have always found repeatedly when looking at gun crime are population density and poverty levels. If you take them both (in a regresison model if you will) you do find correlation. The big difference between the US and the UK is these two areas with the number of poor highly populated areas somehting like 50 times less in the UK.

I woudl suspect that is why most UK people would say no to guns and also come down on teh side of 'want' rather than 'need' if they were available and one chose to buy one.

Great thoughts on this topic.


I believe the 'want' aspect is a constant in this topic, whereas the 'need' aspect is conditional.

That being said, that 'condition' is a potential for everyone on Earth in my opinion.

If you are mentally sound and responsible enough to respect the firearm, like a car, Id say its ok to have one.

Its such a classic game theory scenario, and applies to everything from the first crude blunt weapons of our ancestors, to nukes.

a reply to: Badgered1

Y'know, that's a reasonable question...

One I'll try to answer.

I own firearms because I want to. ...and because I can. The reason are two fold. I enjoy going to the range and shooting, and I have little faith in the kindness of certain portions of society...

Now, to your questions...

I attend, and participate, in city council meetings. I contact, frequently, those people responsible for the overwatch of police, sheriff-deputies, etc... I am a very mouthy, and active, citizen. Not just locally, but my other elected officials know me, and at least one of 'em doesn't particularly like me, as she got downright rude when I asked a question of her. My US senator.

Several years ago... I was harassed frequently by a, now former, police officer. Stopped by him twice for the crime of walking in broad daylight carrying a big gulp (mt dew) and a hot dog (with nacho cheese). The second time, it was on. I got name and badge number and essentially went to war. After some pitiful attempts at intimidation on his part, I don't intimidate well, I finally contacted the Chief of Police, the State Police, the local DA, and the States Attorney Generals office. Several months later, after coming home from a job in Alaska, I ran into him at the local mall, he was a mall cop...still is, for all I know, or care. I couldn't help myself, I had to ask him if he's tried to bully anyone else lately?

Needless to say, he doesn't like me.

So, I suppose you could say I'm politically active in removing corruption. I'm not above making waves if I see an issue that needs resolving...or I think needs resolving. I've been wrong before, and will, without a doubt, be so again.

That's why I get rather incensed when I hear the constant never ending refrain of "we can't fix this". Yes, we can, if we care enough to do the work necessary to fix it.

a reply to: brace22

In my opinion, it does not matter whether it is a case of because one can, or because one must. If it is enshrined in the foundation of ones nation, that its citizens arm themselves in order to better protect themselves from the predatory nature of out of control government, crime, and military invasion (no, not immigration. I know they both begin with the letter i, but they ARE totally different things), then it is the duty of every citizen to be so armed, and it is for no individual, or group thereof to demand that right and duty be curtailed in even the slightest fashion.

Put it this way:

The law in my nation prevents me from going about with a broadsword on my back, a machete at my hip, and long dirks strapped to my wrists. That is the ONLY reason I do not go about armed as I describe.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Odd that in many places in my country, I can open carry a firearm. In the wrong hands, deadly to all around.

But if I carry a sword in those same places, odds are I'm going to get, at the very least, stopped by the cops.

I find that odd, now that I think about it.

a reply to: seagull

Well, I suppose that it has to do with the fact that as weapons go, a blade has some advantages over a gun. The quiet nature of them, the fact that they leave only a wound behind, not stria on a bullet which can link back to the barrel of the firearm from which it was fired, no gunshot residue, no smell of gunpowder, they do not run out of ammunition...

What they lack in range, they make up for in stealth, relentlessness, and anonymity. It is much easier to trace a bullet to a gun, than a wound to an individual blade.

a reply to: UKTruth

Don't you have cricket bats or kitchen knives?

a reply to: TrueBrit

True enough to all your points.

I bought an old Civil War era saber, and a pre-WWII Japanese katana, at auction a few years back. Along with my firearms, they're my most prized possessions. Paid thirty dollars for both, and individually they're worth far, far more than that...not that I'll ever sell 'em.

But I've never considered 'em for self defense... Odd, that. I wonder why?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: UKTruth

Don't you have cricket bats or kitchen knives?

No cricket bat, but I do actually have two baseball bats from my time in New York
Kitchen knives , yeah sure. The problem is that whilst guns are banned here, some criinanals still have guns. Obviously most burglers do not, but you do take a risk if you assume they don't and go for a kitchen knife, then find out they do indeed have a gun.